A chara, – The evangelical pastors who have aired concerns with the Civil Partnership Bill are to be commended for standing up for what they believe (May 5th). There is, however, at least one serious error in the letter. It states “the sole context for all sexual activity is to be within a marriage union between one man and one woman. The Bible is clear that all sexual activity outside of this state is sinful, including homosexual practice.” This is simply untrue; the bible is anything but clear on the matter.
Early in the Bible at Genesis 4:19 we are told that Lamech took two wives. Prominent patriarchs in Judeo-Christian tradition such as Abraham, Jacob, Solomon and David are all said to have more than one wife. Indeed, with regard to David we are told that if the copious amounts of wives and concubines given to David was insufficient, then God would grant even more (2 Samuel 12:8). Surely this is evidence enough that polygamous marriages were commonplace in biblical times?
By New Testament times it seems that tradition favoured monogamous unions (Titus 1:6). With regard to homosexual acts, contemporary biblical scholarship accepts that the tracts of St Paul denouncing homosexuals are in fact based on poor translations from Greek and that something like “male prostitutes” is a better rendering of the sentiment that Paul expresses.
Surely such developments in tradition are evidence enough that the Bible is ambiguous in its teaching on sexual morality? It is precisely the failure of the evangelical tradition to critically appropriate its own foundational texts before making contradictory pronouncements that has led Christianity into disrepute in wider, secular society.
Of course, a close inspection of the Civil Partnership Bill shows no presumption of a sexual relationship between the partners, so should pose no threat to the consciences of Christian registrars. The purpose of the Bill is to enshrine equality; a value that is unambiguously promoted throughout the Bible. – Is mise,
Madam, – Membership of a church is a lifestyle choice. One’s sexuality is not. Let’s get this straight, for want of a better word. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – There is only one clean solution to the difficulties of some religious registrars with the Civil Partnership Bill, and that is to take the civil registration of marriages and partnerships out of their hands, and have these functions exercised by regular officers of the State. This is the practice in many countries and works well for all concerned. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – I am a leader in an evangelical church. Like many of the correspondents (May 5th), I share a faith conviction that marriage is the appropriate place for sexual relationships. I am often in a minority among my friends and peers because of positions I hold based on my Christian faith. Regardless of whatever placards I bring with me to the pub or megaphones I carry on the train, people insist on doing things with their life that I disagree with.
Thankfully, the majority of people who do not share my belief in Jesus leave me to my own archaic practices and indeed sometimes seem very interested and supportive of them.
I may not be convinced that Jesus is OK with sex outside of marriage, but I support the Civil Partnership Bill because I can come up with no theological, political or sociological reasons why my minority faith position should dictate the norms of contemporary Ireland. With respect, I would propose that the State has no obligation to write legislation in such a fashion so that its employees do not experience any challenge to their faith. As far as I am aware, there are no registrars who are evangelical Christians. Evangelical Christians or conservative Muslims or ultra-orthodox Free Spaghetti Monster followers know in advance of applying for such a job that they must oversee the civil partnerships of unions that I would not recommend to my congregation.
I value the freedom of religious expression that the State offers to me. I look forward to the increasingly pluralistic society that Ireland is becoming, in a large part because my faith is not merely tolerant of diversity, but celebrates it.
There will no doubt be articles of legislation in the future that will need robust freedom of conscience clauses. I see no reason why such a situation applies in the case of the Civil Partnership Bill. No one expects me to have to preach sermons for couples that are not part of my church. In return, I see no reason why I or any of my brethren should be able to dictate the shape of legislation that caters to a very different constituency within Irish society. – Yours, etc,